Best argument FOR God that you've heard....

Actually, so far as I recall, in many years, my pro GOD argument is not that he cares for me or you.

Boiled down my argument admits what is known. Earth exists. The Universe exists. Most agree on those points.

Question is why? HOW?

I admit GOD the creator made it happen. Disbelievers are hung up on whether or not GOD cares.

From the many near death accounts, I believe GOD cares. My church accepts he cares.

Does this mean me as one person ambling along this life path? I don't have a clue.

I believe too in Dawkins idea of men on earth arriving by transport by others from someplace in the universe.

I believe that is why the earth human population was focused in particular areas and different colored and having various features of each group.

 

To those posters telling me they do not believe GOD exists and has created it all.

I don't mind one bit you hold that belief. I really am not arguing the merits of what you think.

I am arguing the merits of the universe, this earth and things we all know exists.

I argue your belief does not explain the universe nor man. It does not explain why earth exists.

Frankly, my argument is much closer to explaining all of that.

 

Robert
Thx for sharing your faith
Which i do not wish to attack despite my strong skepticism

That said, imo the LDS provides and example of why I am a skeptic
Here you have a "restored church " that is less than 200 years old
Which is a span of time that is barely a blink of the eye in 1000s of years of history
So somehow god allowed humanity to muddle along without LDS for most of human history
And now at the end come the LDS... which in the best case is limited to recent history and a limited geography.

If god really cared about each of us, and communicating his message to all humanity
This seems a very poorly planned way for god to proceed to accomplish his goals
And why does god allow all the false flag religions like Jews, Catholics, muslims, Hindu, Buddhist, etc
It just seems so very perverse for god to require our belief... and also the conscious rejection of our parents religion,

 

You got a better one?

 

I lean atheist but the best one IMO is the Creator argument: why/how is there something rather than nothing?

 

That is not an argument but simply a question. If it were an argument it would have to be something like this:

P1: There is something instead of nothing.
P2: In order for there to be something there must be a Creator of that something.
C1: A Creator exists.
C2: That Creator is the Abrahamic God.

I needn't point out the fatal flaws in that argument.

As to the question alone, it can be addressed with the anthropic principle:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Because if there was nothing, no one would be here to ask the question, "Why is there nothing instead of something?"

The answer is as silly as the question.

 

Depends entirely what you suppose GOD has expected of him.

You feel about GOD as I feel about Obama and indeed, global climate.

 

That's definitely not the correct answer. It is silly, unlike the question which I find rather fascinating.

 

That is not my argument nor close to it.

I believe in the truly intelligent mind taking notice of facts.

Factually there is a known universe. There may be more than one of them. I won't claim there is.

I have a powerful hunch that the disbelievers in GOD, don't accept the universe and plant and animal kingdom as a creation.

I suppose they believe it always was there.

I dispute that. Fossils show it was not always there.

It seems to me their rejection is based not so much on science as rejection of what they see as the morals clause they believe exists in the Bible.

But does GOD only exist if the Bible says so? I think that no matter what, GOD exists. I stand viewing his marvelous creations so it makes it easy for me.

 

Which one? A lot of arguments have been inspired by that question.

 

FSM seems pretty good... seriously though, how about the Deistic God, I could imagine many better Gods

 

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

the y-man and the best you can hope for is to make a damn fool of yourself.

 

Well, you only selected a portion of my post (above in red). I don't know whether you cleverly quoted mined, ignorantly quoted mined or something else.

I answered the question according to the anthropic principle, and as such I was limited to the answer provided. Of course, and I'm sure you would agree since you are well versed in the anthropic principle, that a mirror image answer also exists, that answer being, "Without something we would not be here to ask the question", but I digress.

Without being restricted to use of the anthropic principle in answering the question, I would answer the question, "I don't know." No, after further reflection, I would answer the question, "I don't know, and neither do you."

However, I could be wrong. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide the correct answer the question yourself. You get 50 entertainment points if you answer with something to the effect, "goddidit".

Therefore, my original post stands. It was not an argument, but merely a question. It can be answered utilizing the anthropic principle, and that answer renders the question and answer silly.

 

I wasn't responding to you. But I will now respond to your post.

You provide no rational argument, just a series of personal claims, most of which are unsupported mere assertions. Let me see if I can distill your post:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Some do not believe GOD created the universe, plants and animals.
P3: The unbelievers disbelieve because they misinterpret the Bible, because they think GOD is immoral, which is not my belief.
P4: I believe GOD exists because I see marvelous things.
C1: Therefore GOD exists.

You're a funny guy.

 

I'm not sure of the specific Creation argument. What sparked life from nothing? Evolutionary soup or a creator? Both are difficult to imagine. Also where did every atom come from? The Big Bang? I think scientists and religious scholars know less than they think they do.

 

Perhaps you should become familiar with the various creation arguments.

Current scientific research concerning the origin of carbon-based life on Earth does not assume that such life came "from nothing". Instead the various abiogenesis hypotheses being explored tentatively assume life originated "from something", that something including atomic elements, organic molecules and the observed laws of chemistry and physics.

False dichotomy. A third possibility is abiogenesis. There are others.

Current cosmological and physics theories contend atomic elements were formed in a variety of ways, based on actual empirical evidence. For example, hydrogen and helium (and a bit of lithium) were formed in the early universe, slightly heavier elements (up to iron) were formed in the normal internal fusion in stars, some heavier elements were formed on the surfaces of large stars (e.g., copper), other heavier elements were formed when certain stars exploded (novas and supernovas) and most of the heaviest elements (e.g., gold, platinum) were formed in the merger of binary neutron stars.

This body of scientifi research is readily available for review, should you choose to invest the time doing so.

Yes, agreed, at least for some. However, scientists are less subject to that than theists.

 

No, science knows pretty darn well what it doesn't know.

Science is constantly ready to point out what is not known.

One of the most fun things about getting into science is that there is so much room for every individual to add to our understanding in serious and important ways.

 

Science doesn't know anything. Scientists think they know more than they do and people believe them. Many people think science has it all figured out, when really we know very little about the universe or even relatively little about our own planet. Overconfidence bias from people with PhD's. I can only imagine what we will know in 50 years compared to human knowledge 50 years ago. Scientists explanation for the unknown downplays everything as "science." The church's explanation for the unknown exaggerates everything as "miracles."

This is my theory for miracles:
[video=youtube;_-agl0pOQfs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs[/video]

 

Or take away what was once "understood" to introduce a new dimension of understanding until that too is "modified".

 

Well, your P2 said it all.

Your very first presumption is that there is a god. Why bother with all that other text? Why make it sound like there was logic involved?

And, your C2 is totally on you. Plus, even those just of the Abrahamic religions believe that more than half are so wrong as to be damned to hell.

 

I put in in logical format for exposure and for discussion. Yes. It is a very poor argument. It is neither sound or valid. That was my point.

 

lol.

However, that bit of video shows no attempt to explain anything at all!

One can live in this world without attempting to understand anything about our physical world. And, we can celebrate the purposeful avoidance of understanding how stuff works.

But, that isn't evidence.

 

Yes. Science does have at its root the understanding that humans aren't perfect or all-knowing - that humans can make mistakes.

Science is designed to be self correcting. Science is an iterative process that is actively focused on rejecting mistakes while accepting better understanding.

We get a better and better understanding over time.

That's not a justification for ignoring the best knowledge we have concerning how our physical world works.

 

Wow - did I ever blow that!!

Sorry. I see what you did there and totally agree, of course!

 

Yeah, I definitely agree with that. Even though it might be the most puzzling and interesting conundrum we have, I don't know of any good arguments from the existence of life. There's the Watchmaker "argument", but it's not really much of an argument. It pretty much just says it's complicated and looks designed, therefore God did it, but most people Paley to point that out for them. I do like a lot of the cosmological arguments. Kalam is one. Thomas' third way (an argument from contingency), mentioned earlier is a good one. His second way is also good.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, then there would be no things existing now.

That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).

Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.